Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the underlying endpoint, the exact projection returned (id, name, website only — not the full profile), and the billing behavior ('company searches do not count toward the allowance'). Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the return shape, then the quota note. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant facts (what it finds, what it returns) come first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be spelled out, and the description still gives a useful summary. With 7 optional params, 3 enums, and high schema coverage, the description is adequate; the only shortfall is that it slightly under-describes the search field (name only vs. name or website) and says nothing about how filtering by status/isVerified interacts with results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents page, limit, search, sortBy, sortOrder, status and isVerified. The description adds only 'by name', which is actually narrower than the schema's 'Company name or website contains this text'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find employers Jobven collects jobs from'), states the endpoint, and explicitly delimits scope against sibling get_company ('get_company has the profile'). It also previews the return fields (id, name, website), so an agent can distinguish it from get_company and search_jobs without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'get_company has the profile' note implicitly routes the agent: use this to locate a company, then call get_company for detail. It also flags the free-quota condition, which is a real usage consideration. It does not state any when-not-to-use case (e.g. when you already have the id), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.